Post navigation

It’s 19 years; Felicity Lowde and Rachel North – no better than each other

Happy Anniversary to Us! Yes, it’s been 19 years, can you believe that? Sure, we’ve had our ups and downs, but, mostly it’s been wonderful and I find it hard to believe that it was 19 years ago we met, for the first time. I still love V very, very much and that’s all that counts in my book.

Now on to the Felicity Jane Lowde versus Rachel North et al. I found this completely by accident about 4 days ago. It has to be the strangest thing I’ve ever read about. I have spent the last 4 days reading through the fjlathome blog, trying to get one side of the story. Sorry, Rachel, I haven’t got to yours yet, but I did intend to go there, so I hope to soon.

It seems, from my cursory glance (not having finished Felicity’s blog yet) that this is something that got completely out of hand. I must admit that I haven’t had any ‘nasty’ comments on my blog (not enough readers and not enough controversy, you see), but if I did, then I would a) not publish the comment and b) not respond to any emails (please note that, for anyone who reads this and feels that they need to explain the whole saga for me).

It seems to me that, if you are in your right mind (and, to be honest, this applies to both ladies), you don’t publish the comments you don’t like or that are abusive or you’re rather stupid. Now, if you’re running a ‘public’ blog, and by that I mean a blog which invites people who can be rude to you or what you say, then fine. But both these ladies were running ‘private’ blogs. They had (or should have had) complete control over who comments and who doesn’t.

Then, there’s the emails. I don’t know about you, but my email system allows me to delete, automatically, emails from people I am not interested in (this would be classed as spam). At the worst case, I could delete them manually.

With regard to people writing horrible things about you on their blog(s) ignore them. If someone made a disparaging remark about me on their blog I would not respond by writing something equally nasty on my blog that just fuels the fire, not puts it out.

Now, as I say, I don’t know the full story and, to be honest, nor does anyone else except, perhaps, the ladies in question. One side says they didn’t write abusive or, in the words of Ms Lowde, malicious, emails, but the other side prints something that purports to be from them which is abusive or malicious. Now someone isn’t telling the whole truth here or perhaps it’s both of them?

To be honest, the comments I did see, about April, 2006 from Ms Lowde, were not very nice. As a 7/7 survivor, Ms North didn’t really deserve to be asked “why did you leave the dead and dying?” which was, in effect, what Ms Lowde asked. I wasn?t there, of course, but I think my first reaction would be to get out and I don’t think it would be my place to question what others did. I can understand if Ms North was a little upset by this. But the correct response to this question, in my opinion, would be to respond once only. If the other person couldn’t understand, then I would leave it and not respond again. It may be a valid question (though I wouldn’t have chosen to ask it of someone who had survived) but it should be made by some official not by ‘joe public’.

It seems that Ms Lowde was motivated by the fact that she felt there should not be a public inquiry whereas Ms North felt that there should be. Honestly, if Ms North wishes to press for a public inquiry, what the hell has it got to do with anyone else? Unless I was an official in MI5 or Special Branch or the Government, it’s not for me to get so uptight about it. Ms North may be right or wrong and I may have my opinion, but the way this spat went was just too much.

Ms Lowde feels she is the victim of a malicious (and I use her word) hate campaign where various people, who didn’t know each other before, got together to attack her. This may be true, or not. It has the possibility of being true, but the possibility doesn’t make it true. In the same vein, just because Ms Lowde was found guilty of harassment of Ms North, in abstentia, does not, unfortunately make it true either. I have been unable to finish reading Ms Lowde’s blog (it seems it may have been taken down, after all), but from what I remember reading, the computer was not analysed to confirm, or otherwise, the truth of her claims that Ms North had been harassing her. Without a forensic analysis of her computer, this would make it a possibility and therefore an unsafe verdict.

I am reminded of people I knew who have made the courts their life’s work but only in a suing/being sued way. And, at the end of the day, the only people who actually win are the people in the legal profession. It doesn’t make you a good person.

Whilst I was reading FJL’s blog I found my mind changing from what I saw as quite an OK person to a person too obsessed for their own good. Many posts were repeats of what had been said before. It seemed too vicious. And although I have not read Rachel North’s blog all the way through (it is said by some other bloggers and, I think, even Rachel herself, that some of the comments, etc. have been removed) but on the current, first page of her blog it reads in a similar way to FJL’s blog in its attacks and, to be honest does not make nice reading.

There are also other blogs on which they (the two ladies) have commented attacking each other in much the same way as each other. It’s not pleasant although it is interesting. But really, now that Ms Lowde’s blogs appear to have been taken down, enough, Rachel. And as for the campaign you started to ‘find Ms Lowde’ it shows the apparent power of the blogosphere but, since all these people don’t know the truth, only what you have told them, then it is just the same bullying tactic that you accuse her of and for which she appears to have been convicted.

Unfortunately, that makes you no better than her and it does not show you in a good light. To be honest, the very best thing that could happen would be a complete forensic examination of both Ms Lowde’s and Ms North’s hard disks and various other areas of blogspot.com. This would be the only solution to this sorry saga and, to be frank, the only way to complete justice for both.

Of course, that won’t be done as it would be far too expensive and far too time consuming and that’s a shame as, in the end, the truth will never out and it will only ever be one woman’s word against another.

I’ve purposely not included any links in this post as I refuse to be seen to support either side. If you want to find out more you can use Google Blog search or Technorati to find all the links you need.

Hi Alex,
Thanks for dropping by. Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, I finally got to read your posts and, whilst I don’t agree with everything you say, it seems fairly rational.
Of course, it would appear that FJL has now been arrested, finally. I’m surprised it took the police so long given that FJL was posting so much.
I have some exdperience of court myself and, unfortunately, they can only take the evidence they have in front of them. Sometimes, that just isn’t enough, as has been seen in the past with very high profile cases. Unfortunately, there are only two people who know the truth and we cannot see inside their heads (although I’m not sure I would want to see inside FJL’s head anyway. It’s quite scary, I would think).

Yes at the time of posting, and of your comment there was little evidence for existence of FJL and criminal record outside of the blogosphere. Although recently more information has been reported, I would still maintain it was feud between two women.

Unfortunately what it looks like to me is Rachel picked a fight with a supporter-turned-critic but this time the critic went “Cable Guy” on her ass.

Of course, it could all be true – or not! Some of the stuff I found, implied that the ‘private’ comments/emails by RN to FJL were about the same level as some of those by FJL to RN. Maybe they were all faked but, if so, it’s elaborate to say the least.
Reading her blog, FJL was/is quite strange and seemed to position herself slightly outside the real world in some instances, particularly in respect of the court case and the law in general. I have seen this with someone else (in real life) who, sometimes, just doesn’t get what the right thing to do would be but keeps harping on about how ‘it’s not right’ or ‘it’s illegal’ or similar. I wouldn’t say he was mentaly challenged in any way but, sometimes, just daft.

Andy – rest assured Lowde’s supposed e-mails or blog comments from Rachel were faked. She did the same to me and to other people. The conviction is not JUST because she said some nasty things about Rachel, you know! So many people seem to think it was just a feud. That’s not the case at all. I am involved in this case and I know what I am talking about.

Alex – whilst I strongly disagree with your views, I do at least genuinely thank you for having the balls to put up my comment. This is something FJL would never have done. It would, however, have become a precedent to her calling the police on you, finding your home address and phone number and harrassing you, sending you hate mail and setting up blogs full of libel about you at multiple locations, all blog titles linked to your interests and employment so that those Googling you would be taken to her libel sites, and also the contacting of your employers in attempts to get you sacked. Now take that knowledge, refrain from replying to any of the stalking, and still put up with it constantly for YEARS. THAT is what Felicity Jane Lowde is.

And there you go, Philip. ‘Another victim’? You say the emails were faked and well they may be. If what you say is true, then maybe she did the same to others. But here you’ve missed the issue. The thing that made me write this was actually what was on Rachel’s blog, not Lowde’s. At one point, Rachel said that that was it and she wasn’t going to say any more – but then she did and it came across as gloating and quite nasty.

I’m sure it was a nasty experience, but it was what Rachel and others said that made the difference as to how I blogged it. And posting your comment as ‘Another victim’ really proves my point. If she’s now ‘safely’ behind bars why use a name like that?

As I have said in another post, the problem with blogging is that one cannot tell what is true or not. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and blogging allows one to post them. Your comment was the only one I chose to allow through (from people who had a different point of view) as it wasn’t rude and it didn’t demand anything from me. So fair enough.

However, from Rachel’s and other people’s blogs and comments (and I don’t mean the other blogs by Lowde, which are rather obvious), I stand by my post and comments. You, of course, are entitled to yours and, if it is true that you have been a ‘victim’ of Lowde then I hope, for your sake and the sake of your sanity, you can now let it go.

It seems that people do not get it. Rachel North is the Joan or Arc of our age. We must allow this brave, courageous survivor of 7/1 to have her say and lead us.
One thing she has saved us from is conspiracy theorists.
These are people who are sabotaging society. That is why former US Congressman and MSNBC anchorman Joe Scarborough said they ought to be sent to secret camps in Eastern Europe and never heard from again. He and Rachel ought to team up and round up these people.
Some of them question the Reichstag Fire and talk about the Lavon Affair in public. Rachel North is a virtuous woman who does not do these things.
Rachel North deserves a medal. Rachel North is a heroine.
People who question Rachel North ought to be sent to prison like Felicity, or off to camps. We need strong US congressmen to carry on righteous campaigns in the secret service, and we need Rachel to blog all the time to get rid of these people.

I have spent the last 4 days reading through the fjlathome blog, trying to get one side of the story. Sorry, Rachel, I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t got to yours yet

Well, that’s a great start isn’t it? You’re going to publicly label me and a convicted criminal harasser with previous convictions for harassment as ‘no better than each other’, even though you admit you have not even looked at my blog or familiarised yourself with the facts.

It seems, from my cursory glance (not having finished FelicityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s blog yet) that this is something that got completely out of hand.

Well, fortunately two police forces – the Met and Thames Valley police – took more than ‘a cursory glance’ at what was going on and decided to prosecute immediately. Fortunately the Judge took more than ‘a cursory glance’ and decided to sentence Lowde to 6 months – the maximum – and even stated he considered that ‘my powers are not sufficient in this case’.

Fortunately 16 other victims were then protected by an ASBO after Lowde’s conviction. Sixteen other people, whom I have never even met. I am glad that the case helped them.

This case was about a serial abuser, who harassed many people in a manner that caused not only severe distress but pushed some people into physical illness – real world damage, real world effects. For God’s sake, I am a blogger, I am familiar with trolls. I am familiar with stupid comments. I am familiar with the delete button. This was not some stupid blog spat, this was criminal harassment. It is a shame that you are apparently unable to accept this, especially after it was *proved* in court.

Can I ask you a question? Do you always disagree with the court’s findings in criminal cases, or just in this instance? Do you always go in for victim-blaming and smears, or just in this instance?

Let’s scotch another myth. When the CPS have a case with multiple victims ( say, a burglar who has robbed dozens of houses, they often, to save time, build the case around one main victim. The CPS chose to build their case around me, rather than the other 16 – remember – 16 people – simply because there was so much credible evidence in my case and I was considered to be a particularly credible witness. But I was never her only target, and like all the other people she attacked, I never asked for it or invited it in any way.

Lowde seems to have selected me because she thought I was vulnerable, an easy target because of my having PTSD. And she seemed to be jealous because of my blog having a profile. With Lowde, you appear to have an angry, jealous failure of a woman who seemingly chose to spend her life trolling, defrauding, abusing and stalking people she selected because she wanted something they had. A happy relationship, a boyfriend/girlfriend, in the case of some of her victims, a published book about Victorian history in the case of some; in other cases it was because simply because she owed them money.

I knew when I agreed to give evidence to take the case forward it would be hard, but I would never have thought that ignorant abusive victim-attacking would be part of what I had to take on. I wonder at the lack of understanding and empathy some people have: it could have been you, remember. It just happened to be me.

By the way, I choose the word ‘victim’ because in a court case, you have the ‘defendant’ and the ‘victim’. I do not consider myself a ‘victim’ ( or Joan of Arc) and I get quite angry when people try to infer that because I have spoken out about what happens when violent strangers attack you, that I get abused for it and accused of ‘wallowing in victimhood’ by some, including one of your commenters here – who calls himself a Christian!

I realise that a conspiracy of shame and silence may suit some people, who would prefer people not to write honestly about surviving rape, torture or terrorism – but I refuse to be told that I cannot write about what happened to me, since it has affected me and I am glad to be alive afterwards.

Ms Lowde feels she is the victim of a malicious (and I use her word) hate campaign where various people, who didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know each other before, got together to attack her. This may be true, or not.

It is not true at all. This is the *whole* point. It is a lie, and was found to be a lie in court. She inverts everything: she stalks people and says they stalk her. She lies and says others lie. She abuses and says she is the victim of abuse. It is a common pattern of people who harass. You read her ravings, and you were deceived. Thank God, most people were not.

I had to sit and let her publish all these lies for over a year and never respond, because of the court case. And even after she was found to be guilty, some of her poison has still stuck, it seems. Great. Thanks. A whole bunch.

As for the ridiculous theories ( again, propagated by one of your commenters on his blog) that I somehow ‘engineered’ a harassment campaign that started in January 2006 to promote a book that I hadn’t even thought of writing – yeah, right. The Lowde trial in fact caused my publishers major problems with the book promotion. I will explain; like any author I was contracted to do promotion surrounding launch, and the trial happening a few weeks before publication really b_ggered things up in that regard. I didn’t need to be attacked by some sick no-mark to write or sell that book. There were interviews arranged already – which the trial coverage actually jeopardised. She was not even mentioned in it ( a fact which apparently infuriates her to this day). I could really have done without her and her trial and her absconding at what was already a stressful time

I am reminded of people I knew who have made the courts their lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but only in a suing/being sued way. And, at the end of the day, the only people who actually win are the people in the legal profession. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make you a good person.

FFS. Another basic error/smear. I did not ‘sue’ Lowde – the CPS *prosecuted* her on behalf of the State for the crimes she committed. I have never ‘sued’ anyone in my life and the only times I have ever been in court was
a) giving evidence as the victim in a rape case – the assailant got 15 years because it was a particularly vicious & violent crime – and b) giving evidence as the victim in Lowde’s case – and in both instances, it was the State acting as prosecutor, not me. There is a difference between criminal and civil law. I have never been involved in a civil law suit.

It seems to me that, if you are in your right mind (and, to be honest, this applies to both ladies), you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t publish the comments you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like or that are abusive Ã¢â‚¬â€œ or youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re rather stupid.

Sheesh. The comments were not published, nor the hatemail. Again, you could have checked this. Me not responding or publishing the comments didn’t stop her sending them, even after she was asked to stop.

Agauin, I will try to help you to understand. Having a letterbox does not give anyone the right to push hatemail through your door. Having a telephone number does not give anyone the right to phone you and scream abuse. At some point, if someone’s behaviour is causing you such distress, and ignoring them/asking them to stop makes no difference you have to try and stop it. I warned her that if she did not stop I would have no option but to go to the police, as her level of hatred was becoming terrifying.

Guess what? Lowde was the one who then went to the police and made false complaints about me.

THEN – and only then was when the police got involved – and on checking, found she was the abusive harasser. With, as I said, many victims and previous form.

So you see, it was never just a blog spat, as you attempt to make out. What do you do when someone abuses you so much and then makes false complaints to the police about you? And they begin investigating? And find out that the complainant is committing crimes?

Abuse is abuse. A deranged hate campaign is a deranged hate campaign. And nobody should have to just sit and take it.Nor, wuite honestly, should they be expected to put up with the sort of insulting nonsense you have published afterwards, though I do not intend to do anything other than try to register my response to you here.

In Lowde’s case, not only did she send abuse privately, but published it for the whole world to see, to try to blacken my personal and professional reputation, which made it worse than just sending it privately. She also attempted to get others to publish the lies and hate as well. It was a sustained hate campaign that went on for over 400 days.

I kept quiet and I took it. And took it and took it. I only mentioned it on my blog AFTER she had been convicted, to finally set the record straight after biting my lip for so long. She, on the other hand, published foul attacks on me for over a year, every day, day in, day out.

You misrepresent me with your post, in so many ways. Am I going to the police and accusing you of harassment? No.

Look. All of this which I have written is a matter of public record, if you had only bothered to look for yourself before spouting off. The only reason I am finally replying is that this post comes up in the google rankings and people are still replying to it.

And as for the campaign you started to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfind Ms LowdeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ it shows the apparent power of the blogsphere Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but, since all these people donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know the truth, only what you have told them, then it is just the same bullying tactic that you accuse her of and for which she appears to have been convicted.

No. *Sigh* She had absconded from arrest, the Judge had issued a warrant for her immediate arrest and she was believed to be using cybercafes in N Oxford and N E London. Bloggers put up notices to this effect – and after a blogger tip off she was found in a cyber cafe by a blogger in NE London, arrested and sentenced to the maximum for a) the harassment b) the absconding as an aggravating factor. Bloggers reporting it is no different to a newspaper reporting it – in fact several newspapers & a magazine reported her absconding as well. The campaign asked people who saw her to call the police or crimestoppers, and as such was no different to any other police or crimestoppers campaign to find a wanted criminal. It was in fact a great success, and afterwards I asked people to take the posts down, in order to be scrupulously fair to my harasser.

You then say about a forensic examination of the hard drives. Lowde’s defence team had over a year to examine her hard drive. Interestingly, they dropped this line of inquiry.

Lowde was found guilty in court according to the evidence. The ASBO she was given protects 16 other victims. Why can you not accept this FACT? It suits you it seems to misrepresent it. Well, I’m calling you on your misrepresentation.

Since the conviction was reported, my family and I have been shocked and upset to see that I have been the target of abuse and ignorant comments by people who have not even bothered to familairise themselves with the facts.

In particular, various conspiracy theorists have leapt at the opportunity to attack me – because they were already angry with me. Why? Because I do not support their conspiracy theories about 7/7 and 9/11 and have spoken out against them. There’s a sarcastic comment left a few weeks ago as an example just above my response ( if you publish it). It is, I am afraid to say, typical of the bullying tactic used by some of these people that I have seen demonstrated again and again since I refused to back their 7/7 conspiracy theories, which seems to infuriate them. Well, too bad.

Have I asked for them to be rounded up and put into camps? No, it is a stupid and ridiculous thing to even suggest it.

The plain fact is, Lowde was and still is a serial harasser who has been jailed before for harassing others.

To use her in this case to have a go at me, or to draw any parallels between me, an innocent person who along with other innocent people was attacked by her and her, an abusive criminal – is deeply offensive.

Alex Fear ludicrously claims ‘there is no proof that Lowde has even been convicted’ which gives you an insight into the mindset of those who see conspiracies and untruths everywhere. A phone call to the court would have checked that out. And I gave the court date and details on Lowde’s conviction so anyone could check for themselves. Alex Fear claims I ‘picked a fight’ with Lowde – wrong. She is a serial harasser and she just happened to target me – as well as many others. I dod nothing to draw her attentions to me save have a blog.

All of this is FACT which anyone could have CHECKED for themselves – but instead some people, it seems, prefer to indulge in hurtful gossip, misrepresentation and sarcastic attacks without bothering to see if what they are writing is the truth or a lie which helps a convicted abuser cause distress

You even had proof when another Lowde victim came and posted here – but you chose to ignore that as well.

I’d be very surprised if you let this through since it seems to challenge your cosy little view of what happened, untroubled by research or evidence. But at least I get to tell you how and why you are so wrong.

And yes, it does upset me. Of course it does. I am a human being.

If you had some crazy, jealous stranger doing her level best to cause you to have a nervous breakdown for a year after you got caught up in a news story in which you nearly died, and even after she was convicted and you finally mentioned it, more strangers decided to pick over the story and make stupid accusations and smears,then I guess you would be pretty p_ssed off too.

I believe it would take you about three seconds to click ‘publish’ with regard to my comment.

Meanwhile this nonsense about me comes up in google on the front page and is upsetting to me and my family. It has been up here for a year and you are still referring to it and publishing comments on it.

You don’t actually need to respond to my comment, and I am not expecting an apology, although one would be nice – but allowing me the right of reply after you have published an inaccurate, misleading, defamatory attack in which you say I am no better than a convicted abuser with multiple convictions is appropriate, and the very least you could, and should do.

Put it this way: if this was printed in a newspaper, you’d be in front off the Press Complaints Commission by now.

Because what you have written is defamatory, misleading, and unjustified. It passes beyond the realm of fair comment because it purports to be accurate, which it is very far from being.

Pressing ‘PUBLISH’ – which you managged to do 2 weeks ago when one of your readers commented on this post is not that hard is it?

So yes, I do mind that you have not put the comment through. I mind that you are willing to say such things about me, and then censor my response – and I have drawn an inference from it.

@Rachel,
I had planned, as I said in my previous comment to you, to respond more fully.
But then, after your subsequent comment and actions and, after some time had elapsed (as I indicated it would in my previous comment) I had time to further reflect and change my response.
I would, instead, remind you of two things.
1. I would not have made this post were it not for the entry you made on your blog on, or just before, 2nd June 2006. This was written in the style and manner of Ms Lowde. This is what made you no better than her. Unless, of course, she somehow managed to gain access to your blog and the dreadful posting was, in fact, not made by you at all.
2. The Ã¢â‚¬ËœcampaignÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to find Ms Lowde was, in my opinion, a bad decision as, again, it was the same type of thing that she had been doing. It should have been left up to the police. You could have provided them with the ISP addresses that Ms Lowde was using and they could have gone to all the internet cafes in the area, leaving photographs and instructions for the owners to call them. The Ã¢â‚¬ËœcampaignÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ was simply unwarranted and unnecessary.
Incidentally, you originally came to this post by typing Ã¢â‚¬ËœFelicity LowdeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into Google. Now, why on earth would you do that? Why would anyone do that unless they are a) friends of Ms Lowde or b) enemies of hers? And, if enemies, then they wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe a word I have written!

–I believe it would take you about three seconds to click ‘publish’ with regard to my comment–
This is true. However, as I am sure you know, this is a private blog. On this blog I give my opinion. People are welcome to comment but I choose whether to put them through and when. In this case, as I said in my previous comment, I needed a couple of weeks to respond. This is not your blog and your comment may/may not be accepted by me and I will choose if I wish to respond.

You can do the same with your blog, I would hope.

–Meanwhile this nonsense about me comes up in google on the front page and is upsetting to me and my family. It has been up here for a year and you are still referring to it and publishing comments on it.–

Duh! This Ã¢â‚¬ËœnonsenseÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ as you call it has been coming up on Google for almost a year. I have not referred to you recently and only made one link to this post from within my other posts, which was a long time ago. I am publishing your comments as well.

But, I remind you that you came here by typing in Ã¢â‚¬ËœFelicity LowdeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. Why are your family doing that? And why are you?

–You don’t actually need to respond to my comment, and I am not expecting an apology, although one would be nice – but allowing me the right of reply after you have published an inaccurate, misleading, defamatory attack in which you say I am no better than a convicted abuser with multiple convictions is appropriate, and the very least you could, and should do.–

Hello? I should do it. Why? My post is not inaccurate, misleading or defamatory in my opinion. Of course, you are entitled to yours and I have decided to allow it to be published. Alternatively, you have your own blog for exactly the purpose of publishing your opinion.

–Put it this way: if this was printed in a newspaper, you’d be in front off the Press Complaints Commission by now.–

But, this is not a newspaper, I am not a journalist and these are my opinions.

–Because what you have written is defamatory, misleading, and unjustified. It passes beyond the realm of fair comment because it purports to be accurate, which it is very far from being.–

Well, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not quite right, now, is it? Perhaps you should read the whole thing again, more carefully?

–Pressing ‘PUBLISH’ – which you managged to do 2 weeks ago when one of your readers commented on this post is not that hard is it?–

As I said. I would post it when I could reply.

–So yes, I do mind that you have not put the comment through. I mind that you are willing to say such things about me, and then censor my response – and I have drawn an inference from it.–

Duh!! If the inference you have drawn is Ã¢â‚¬Ëœhe is simply far too busy to give proper weight to my comments and respond accordinglyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Ã¢â‚¬â€œ then you are right! Well done.

I refer you to your first comment and, in particular:
— Nor, wuite honestly, should they be expected to put up with the sort of insulting nonsense you have published afterwards, though I do not intend to do anything other than try to register my response to you here.–

And yet, within 48 hours, you do exactly that, in spite of the fact that I have already told you that I will put your comment through in a couple of weeks, which, as I am a man of my word, I have done. (It took me a little longer because of the email then sent by the lady.)

I am guessing that you are not used to people saying something and then doing it?

Anger is a problem in the UK these days. It must be addressed. People must move on and learn to control and manage it.

I was going to post the email I then received but chose not to. My blog = my choice.

Rachel, please donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t try to comment anymore. I will not, under any circumstances, let them through. This post will remain here, as this post. If I refer to it, it will be with Felicity LowdeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s name and never yours. I will never link to it again. If people come looking for Felicity Lowde then they cannot possibly be looking for you, right?

Unless, of course, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve got it all wrong and this series of comments are from Lowde, masquerading as North? In which case Lowde is cleverer than I thought and I would apologise to Rachel for having responded to Lowde.

Some people here have said that Lowde wrote vicious things. Presumably they are refering to the messages that Rachel claimed in the Sunday Times came from Lowde?
How do we know those messages came from Lowde?
Rachel could have made them up.
I saw Lowde’s blog that got taken down and I didn’t think she wrote anything except fair comment.
She commented on how the police were bullying and abusing her constantly at Rachel’s request. What she was being put tnrough sounded horrific. Some of her posts could be seen as a response to being subjected to horrific abuse. Yet that being said, Lowde mostly wrote in a peaceful and dignified way.
I don’t think there is any evidence that Lowde had any other blogs. I never saw her bully a living soul.
Rachel’s rant, above, does nothing to convince me that she is innocent in the matter.
She was already protesting too much after two paragraphs.
Why was Rachel deleted from the 7/7 Inquest witness list?
You don’t get deleted from witness lists if you are a reliable witness.

To add to my comment above, I think the only time Lowde failed to write in a peaceful and dignified way was when she was expressing upset about being bullied and abused by Rachel and police. In which case fair dos. She had a right to express some of her distress and it was quite gracious. I never saw her get vicious, never. I don’t think people should be making remarks about for example the inside of Lowde’s head when all we have to go on is Rachel North’s ranting which seems to be the sort of thing that got Rachel rejected by the court over the 7/7 inquest.
I thought Rachel’s mob were extremely vicious. Lowde didn’t have a mob.